Apollos Teacher Training Institute v. C.Subramanian & Ors.

1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS(CONTEMPT JURISDICTION) MONDAY, THE 22nd DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMARCONTEMPT PETITION No. 708 of 2008ANDSUB APPLICATION No.223 of 2008************Apollos Teacher Training Institute,Represented by its correspondentRev. Jabathoni A.M.David,Uralpatti, Udumalpet Taluk,Coimbatore District.... Petitioner Vs1)C.Subramanian, The Principal, District Institute of Education & Training, Thirumoorthy Nagar, Udumalpet Taluk, Coimbatore District.2)Director of Government Examinations, Chennai 6. ... Respondents(2nd respondent impleaded as per order dated 04/09/2008made in Contempt Petn. No.708/2008) Contempt Petition praying that this Court be pleasedto punish the respondent for wilfully and wantonlydisobeying the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 25/06/2008and made in M.P.No.1 of 2008 in W.P.No.14749 of 2008.Sub Application praying that this Court be pleased togrant an interim direction directing the respondent toconduct Supplementary Examinations for the students of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2the petitioner institute to write the subject paper, namely"Challenges in Indian Education" pending disposal of theContempt Petition. The above Contempt Petition and Sub Application comingon this day before this Court for hearing in the presenceof Mr.K.Selvaraj, Advocate for the petitioner in bothPetitions; and of Mr.G.Sankaran, Special Government Pleaderfor Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal, Government Advocate for therespondents in both Petitions; and upon reading thepetition and affidavit of Rev.Jabathoni A.M.David, filed inboth Petitions; and the counter affidavit of C.Subramanian,filed in Contempt Petition; and the counter affidavit andadditional affidavit of Vasanthi Jeevanandam, filed inContempt Petition; the Court made the following order:- Heard Mr. K. Selvaraj, the learned counsel appearingfor the petitioner and Mr.G.Sankaran, Special GovernmentPleader appearing for the respondents and perused thematerials available on record.2. The petitioner institution filed a Writ Petitionnamely, W.P.No.14749 of 2008, on the file of this Courtagainst the first and second respondents herein and theDirector of Teacher Education, Research and Training ,Chennai for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus directing therespondents to approve the admission of the studentsadmitted in the petitioner institution in D.T.Ed. course https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3for the academic year 2007-2008 and consequently directthem to permit the students of the petitioner institutionadmitted in the academic year 2007-2008, to writepractical and theory examinations of the first year. 3. Pending disposal of the Writ Petition, thepetitioner institution also prayed for an interim directionby filing Miscellaneous Petition No. 1 of 2008 inW.P.No.14749 of 2008 to permit the students of thepetitioner institution to write practical and theoryexaminations of the first year course scheduled to becommenced on 26.6.2008. The said Miscellaneous Petitioncame to be disposed of by an order dated 25.6.2008 , whichcontains the following operative portion:- "Considering the submission of the counselfor both sides and the fact that Governmentsponsored students were permitted to writeexamination, the respondents are directed to:i)Permit the students of the petitionerinstitution to sit for the examinationto be held on 26.06.2008, except 6students whose names were alreadyinformed by the respondent, however,the results shall not be declared untilfurther orders. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4ii)This order is passed subject to theresult of the writ petition. iii)This order shall not confer anyadditional right to the petitionerinstitution or their students in anymanner" 4. Pursuant to the said order, one of the lecturersof the petitioner institution seems to have approached thefirst respondent on 26.6.2008, at about 9.30 a.m. with aplea to permit the students of the said institution to sitfor the examination scheduled to be held on 26.8.2008 at10.00 a.m. The first respondent declined the requeststating that he could not permit the students to writeexaminations without roll numbers being assigned in thenominal roll signed by the Director of GovernmentExaminations was received. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner wouldcontend that though the first respondent had got theknowledge of the order passed by this Court directing thefirst respondent herein and the other respondents in theWrit Petition to permit the students of the petitionerinstitution to write the examinations that started on26.6.2008, the failure on the part of the first respondentto permit the students of the petitioner https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5institution to write the examination held on 26.6.2008amounts to willful disobedience and hence the firstrespondent should be punished for contempt. 6. The first respondent has filed the counteraffidavit stating that the nominal roll containing rollnumbers assigned by the Director of Government Examinationswas received only in the morning hours of 27.6.2008 andpromptly he allowed the students to write the examinationson 27.6.2008 and the subsequent dates. As conflictingstatements were made by the first respondent during thecourse of enquiry regarding availability of fax servicesin his office and since it was not known as to the mode inwhich nominal roll was communicated to the firstrespondent and the time at which the same was despatchedfrom the office of the Director of Government Examinations,this Court deemed it fit to suo motu implead the Directorof Government Examinations as the second respondent.Pursuant to the impleadment of the second respondent as co-contemner, the second respondent appeared in person andhas also filed a counter affidavit. The Director ofGovernment Examinations, arrayed as the second respondent,has given a clear picture of what transpired on 25.6.2008and 26.6.2008 and how the authorities were not in aposition to allow the students to write the examination https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6held on 26.6.2008. According to the particulars furnishedby the second respondent herein, the correspondent of thepetitioner institution produced the draft nominal rollalong with necessary documents at the office of theDirector of Teacher Educational, Research and Training,Chennai on 26.6.2008 in the morning. The same, afterverification and counter signature, was transmitted to theoffice of the Director of Government Examinations andreceived in the said office at about 12.45 p.m. and withinfifteen minutes thereafter, the nominal roll was handedover to the Correspondent of the petitioner institutioncounter signed by the Joint Director of GovernmentExaminations after assigning roll numbers against each oneof the candidates found in the said nominal roll. It hasalso been stated in the counter affidavit that the saidnominal roll was sent through the Correspondent of thepetitioner school who affixed the signature with date intoken of receiving the same from the office of the Directorof Government Examinations. 7. A perusal of the above said contentions raised inthe counter affidavit of the second respondent shows thatthe first respondent could not have received the nominalroll on 26.6.2008 itself. On the other hand, the learnedcounsel for the petitioner would contend that along with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7the petitioner institution, several institutions who gotorders from the Court submitted the nominal rolls on26.6.2008 itself and that while the students of all otherinstitutions were able to write the examination held on26.6.2008, the students of the petitioner institution alonewere singled out and denied the said benefit. The learnedSpecial Government Pleader has also produced a copy of theletter addressed by the Deputy Director, Directorate ofTeacher Education, Research and Training to the Directorof Government Examinations to the effect that the nominalroll was received at the office of the Director of TeacherEducation, Research and Training at 11.45 a.m. On26.6.2008; that immediately thereafter verification of thestudents list was done and that the nominal roll was sentto the Directorate of Government Examinations at about12.45 p.m. on the very same date. Though the learnedcounsel for the petitioner would contend that the nominalroll on approval should have been communicated to the firstrespondent either over phone or through fax, there is noevidence to show that there was such a communication eithersent by the Directorate, Teacher Education, Research andTraining or received in the office of the first respondent.The learned counsel for the petitioner made an attempt tocontend that the nominal roll should have been approvedmuch before 10.00 a.m. on 26.6.2008 and communicated to the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 8first respondent by fax and that despite such acommunication, the first respondent refused to allow thestudents of the petitioner institution to write theexamination held on 26.6.2008. The learned counsel forthe petitioner, also drew the attention of the Court to theaverment found in the counter affidavit filed by the firstrespondent in an attempt to show that despite having suchknowledge the first respondent refused to allow thestudents to write the examination on 26.6.2008. The saidaverment found in the counter affidavit of the firstrespondent shows that he was informed by a lecturer of thepetitioner institution that such an order was passed andthat the first respondent gave a reply to the said lecturerthat the students could not be allowed to sit for theexamination unless the nominal roll was received. It alsotranspires from the said averment that the first respondentin the presence of the said lecturer contacted the officeof the Directorate of Teacher Education, Research andTraining and ascertained that the correspondent of thepetitioner school was present in the said office with thenominal roll for the approval. The same will go to showthat the nominal roll should not have been sent to theDirectorate of Government Examinations after approval bythe Director of Teacher Education, Research and Trainingbefore 9.30 a.m. It makes the contention of the second https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9respondent that the nominal roll with the counter signatureof the Deputy Director of Teacher Education, Research andTraining reached the office of the Director of GovernmentExaminations at 12.45 p.m. and within 15 minutesthereafter, the same was approved and handed over to thecorrespondent of the petitioner school after assigningroll numbers seems to be quite probable. 8. In the above said background of facts, this Courtis of the view that the petitioner has not made out a casethat the nominal roll did reach the first respondent'soffice before the expiry of 30 minutes after examinationstarted on 26.6.2008. The contention of the firstrespondent that the nominal roll handed over to thecorrespondent in the office of the Director of GovernmentExaminations was handed over to the first respondent onlyin the morning hours on 27.6.2008 seems to be quiteprobable. In these circumstances, this Court is not in aposition to accept the contention of the learned counselfor the petitioner that despite the receipt ofcommunication of the nominal roll approved by theDirectorate of Government Examinations by fax or on anyother mode of communication the first respondent refused toallow the students of the petitioner institution to writethe examination on 26.6.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

109. Turning to the other aspect of the case, viz.whether the refusal on the part of the first respondent toallow the students of the petitioner institution to sit forthe examination on 26.6.2008 even after having a knowledgethat the Court had directed the respondents in the WritPetition to allow the students to sit for the examinationon 26.6.2008, this court is of the considered view thatthough such act on the part of the first respondent mayhave the effect of defeating the object sought to beachieved by the order passed by this Court, such an actcannot be termed a willful disobedience of the order ofthis Court. The first respondent could not have allowed anumber of students to sit for the examinations without theroll numbers being assigned. Therefore this court is ofthe considered view that the petitioner institution hasfailed in its attempt to show that the first respondenthas committed contempt of court. 10. For all the reasons stated above, this Court comesto the conclusion that neither the first respondent nor the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 11second respondent committed any act of contempt.Accordingly the Contempt Petition is closed. Witness the Hon'ble Thiru ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, theChief Justice of High Court at Madras, as aforesaid, thisthe 22nd day of September, 2008. DEPUTY REGISTRAR (OS)//Certified to be true copy//Dated at Madras this the day of 2008.COURT OFFICER(O.S.)From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuingcertified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in thisformat. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 12SMVCONTEMPT PETITION No.708/2008ANDSUB APPLICATION No.223/2008THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMARORDERDATED : 22/09/2008FOR APPROVAL :16/10/2008APPROVED ON :16/10/2008